Rangers today took their battle against a 12-month transfer embargo to the law courts.
Administrators Duff and Phelps announced that legal proceedings had begun against the Scottish Football Association in the Court of Session in Edinburgh.
In a statement, joint-administrator Paul Clark said: "The club started proceedings at the Court of Session today in an attempt to challenge the imposition by an SFA judicial panel of a player signing embargo.
"The process will continue at the court on Tuesday and it is the club's position that the judicial panel did not have the powers to impose such a sanction.
"The club and the administrators are grateful for the support of the Rangers Fighting Fund on this matter."
The club's argument centres on the fact that the punishment, specifically a ban on registering players aged over 17, is not explicitly laid out in the SFA rules and so they claim it was not available to the panel.
However, the SFA articles of association include a clause that a judicial panel can implement any sanctions they deem appropriate.
Rangers last week lost an SFA appeal against the punishment, which was handed down over their failure to pay £13million in tax last season.
The disrepute charge was one of five offences Rangers were found guilty of in relation to their financial affairs and the appointment as chairman of Craig Whyte, who was deemed unfit for a role in football by an SFA-commissioned independent inquiry over his previous disqualification as a director.
The initial three-man judicial panel, which also fined Rangers a total of £160,000, was chaired by a QC and the appeal panel chairman was serving judge Lord Carloway.
The appeal verdict stated: "Although the appellate tribunal has listened carefully to the representations from Rangers FC about the practical effects of the additional sanction, it has concluded that this sanction was proportionate to the breach, dissuasive to others and effective in the context of serious misconduct, bringing the game into disrepute."
Charles Green, the former Sheffield United chief executive at the head of the consortium that has agreed to purchase the club, previously backed the administrators in their attempts to challenge the ban.
The club's challenge, led by Richard Keen QC, is being paid for by the Rangers Fans Fighting Fund, which was formed to enable supporters to help the club through administration.
Rangers fear the embargo will leave them without an experienced team next season as several of their leading players negotiated exit clauses when they agreed to temporary wage cuts.
This means they are free to leave for a specific cut-price fee from June 1, when their wages are due to revert to normal.
Green signed a contract putting his group in an exclusive position to buy the club almost two weeks ago but plans to send a Company Voluntary Arrangement proposal to creditors on Monday did not materialise and administrators revised their target to some time this week.
Creditors would have two weeks before voting on any offer and, if a CVA is approved, there is a 28-day cooling-off period before the club would be able to come out of administration.
The SFA issued a brief statement regarding today's court hearing.
"We note Rangers FC's initiation of proceedings at the Court of Session in relation to the sanctions imposed by an independent judicial panel, which were subsequently upheld by an appellate tribunal chaired by Lord Carloway.
"With the hearing continued until Tuesday, it would be inappropriate to comment further at this stage."
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article